ORDER If there was any element of fraud in obtaining any qualifications or employment for which the petitioner - respondent no. 1 may have applied and received the assignment, the Court would have entertained this appeal. But these circumstances, at least learned counsel for the appellant (National Hydroelectric Power Corporation Ltd.) acknowledges, are not issues. The issues are best explained on what the qualification was when applying for a job and the qualifications of the candidate, that is, the respondent no. 1. Below is reproduced the qualification as was given in the advertisement and the qualifications possessed by the petitioner - respondent no. 1 : Qualification Advertisement - 3 years Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering from recognised institute with minimum 60% marks OR equivalent grade. Petitioner - B.Sc. Hons (Electronics) and respondent no. 1 M.Sc. (Electronics) with First Class. The only submission which has been made is that it would be appropriate that the High Court interprets the situation to make things more clear for the future. Plainly, the Court does not desire to get involved in the matter as there is no question of law which requires an interpretation by the High Court. This situation is best appreciated from paragraph 7 the counter affidavit filed by respondents 3 to 9 in the writ petition. The respondents considered the petitioner, in effect, as over qualified by a resolution from the Executive Committee meeting of respondents 3 to 9. Paragraph 7 of the counter affidavit is reproduced: That in the minutes of the 71st meeting of the Executive Committee held on 19 July 2000 it was decided that persons having higher qualifications shall not be appointed for lower posts particularly in non-executive Cadre and internal candidates acquiring requisite qualifications later on be appointed through internal circular and by conducting the interviews. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the appellants to explain that this resolution was not passed for this particular case of the petitioner as future guidelines. This makes the suggestion worse for the appellants. According to the appellants the minimum qualification of 3 years Diploma in Electronics & Communication Engineering from a recognized institute with minimum 60% marks or equivalent grade would suffice. On the other hand, the petitioner - respondent no.1 possesses degrees of B.Sc Hons (Electronics) and M.Sc (Electronics). His track record is that he is a First Class throughout, from High School to M.Sc. On the other hand, the petitioner - respondent no.1 possesses degrees of B.Sc Hons (Electronics) and M.Sc (Electronics). His track record is that he is a First Class throughout, from High School to M.Sc. Electronics is the related field. This is not denied. It is entirely up to the appellant respondents to take their policy decision whether they desire an over qualified candidate that is the petitioner - respondent no.1 or a lesser with diploma will do. The Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. There is no error in the order of the learned judge. Accordingly, this appeal stands dismissed.